On 5/5/05 4:17 AM, "Dan Brickley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The autodiscovery spec is a reasonable interpretation of the *one >>> line* definition of the 'alternate' relation. >> >> how is a feed of recent entries a "substitute version for the document in >> which the link occurs" when that document is some blog post long since >> dropped out of the feed? > > Because the HTML definition is close to meaningless. I can substitute > any document for another, and the 2nd is a substitution not through any > intrinsic characteristics, but because it was substituted. Many of the > HTML link type definitions don't bear up under detailed scrutiny... Only if you take the most broadest sense of the word 'substitute'. This is like saying that not only is olive oil a substitute for butter in cooking, but so is engine oil, concrete, a 400 pound gorilla, and the square root of the gross national product of madagascar. No, I suspect they used the word 'substitute' in it's more narrow sense, and they used the word 'substitute' because they didn't want to write "alternate: Designates an alternate version for the document in which the link occurs" which would be circular. e.
